and many more benefits!

Find us on Facebook

GMAT Club Timer Informer

Hi GMATClubber!

Thank you for using the timer!
We noticed you are actually not timing your practice. Click the START button first next time you use the timer.
There are many benefits to timing your practice, including:

Hide Tags

Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f [#permalink]

Show Tags

25 Jul 2017, 07:50

If in C, protect was plural (protects). Would it have been correct? The OG answer says that "that require" is wordy and unnecessary, but that part sounds better to me. Again, assuming it didn't have the protect issue.

Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f [#permalink]

Show Tags

26 Jul 2017, 02:10

hi all,i know this sub-verb agreement question.But however i fail to understand the how the Subject is compliance here.My question will sound silly,but please help me identify the main subject and main verb

Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f [#permalink]

Show Tags

26 Jul 2017, 02:36

1

This post receivedKUDOS

brandon7 wrote:

If in C, protect was plural (protects). Would it have been correct? The OG answer says that "that require" is wordy and unnecessary, but that part sounds better to me. Again, assuming it didn't have the protect issue.

namrata88 wrote:

hi all,i know this sub-verb agreement question.But however i fail to understand the how the Subject is compliance here.My question will sound silly,but please help me identify the main subject and main verb

Yes, in that case C would have been correct. But note that there is no reason to reject option B as well. So, a typical GMAT question will never have two such options at the same time. Hence, rest assured about that. 2nd Query:

Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit for the resurgence of the rare Kemp's ridley turtle, saying that their compliance with laws requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting adult sea turtles.

Show Tags

If in C, protect was plural (protects). Would it have been correct? The OG answer says that "that require" is wordy and unnecessary, but that part sounds better to me. Again, assuming it didn't have the protect issue.

Show Tags

Yes, in that case C would have been correct. But note that there is no reason to reject option B as well. So, a typical GMAT question will never have two such options at the same time. Hence, rest assured about that. 2nd Query:

Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit for the resurgence of the rare Kemp's ridley turtle, saying that their compliance with laws requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting adult sea turtles.

However, I would just like to let you know that what follows saying that is not an independent clause. It is a dependent clause because the connector that always starts a dependent clause.

The connector that always associates with the clause that it starts. So essentially, after saying, we have a dependent clause that reads: that their compliance with laws... is protecting adult sea turtles.

Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f [#permalink]

Show Tags

07 Aug 2017, 02:40

1

This post receivedKUDOS

souvik101990 wrote:

Concept tested: SV agreement, Meaning.Difficulty level: HighIllustration: This question tests a very important aspect of meaning. First, we knowthat the main verb in the underlined portion “protect” is wrong as the mainsubject “compliance is singular. (Note that protect is not being used as a commandsubjunctive in A. “be” is used as the command subjunctive).According to this logic, A and C are wrong.Now among B, D and E, “to require” indicates purpose of the law which is not the intended meaning (please refer to the tip below). So, D and E are incorrect. B is the correct answer.

Tip: “Laws to require” indicates purpose of the law, but “laws requiring indicatescontents of the law. While this might sound very obvious to natives, but non nativesmight have to struggle to get this clearly. Consider the following examples.1.Arms act is passed to discourage random public shootings. Correct2.Arms act is passed to levy heavy fines on people who carry unlicensedfirearm. Wrong.

2 is wrong because the arms act is not issued to levy fines. It is issued to preventsomething by levying fines. So the correct option is B.

I am very thankful for this explanation... I was completely clueless about why D,E was rejected. I read so many posts but no one explained it so clearly as you did.Thanks again

Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f [#permalink]

Show Tags

31 Aug 2017, 21:50

Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit for the resurgence of the rare Kemp's ridley turtle, saying that their compliance with laws requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect adult sea turtles.

Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f [#permalink]

Show Tags

19 Oct 2017, 23:26

In this question I made an error of identifying the wrong Subject and said that the devices are the subject. But later realized that devices cannot be the subject because follows the prepositional phrase with and hence cannot be the subject. Is my reasoning correct?

Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f [#permalink]

Show Tags

21 Oct 2017, 02:55

nevergiveup wrote:

OG16 SC134Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit for the resurgence of the rare Kemp's ridley turtle, saying that their compliance with laws requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect adult sea turtles.

Show Tags

Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit for the resurgence of the rare Kemp's ridley turtle, saying that their compliance with laws requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect adult sea turtles.

Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f [#permalink]

Show Tags

28 Nov 2017, 11:56

I chose B because it seemed the closest answer to me, but I don't understand why the correct answer should not "requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets was protecting" instead of "on shrimp nets is protecting"? Can anyone explain it to me please?

Show Tags

In this question I made an error of identifying the wrong Subject and said that the devices are the subject. But later realized that devices cannot be the subject because follows the prepositional phrase with and hence cannot be the subject. Is my reasoning correct?

Show Tags

I chose B because it seemed the closest answer to me, but I don't understand why the correct answer should not "requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets was protecting" instead of "on shrimp nets is protecting"? Can anyone explain it to me please?

Thank You!

I will be glad to help you out with this one.

Firstly, there is no answer choice that gives the option to choose was protecting. All the answer choices uses the present tense verbs.

Secondly, use of present tense verb in the original sentence that this action of protecting the turtles is prevalent in the present. It is not that the turtles were being protected in the past. They still are being protected by the local shrimpers.

Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f [#permalink]

Show Tags

01 Feb 2018, 20:42

Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit for the resurgence of the rare Kemp's ridley turtle, saying that their compliance with laws requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect adult sea turtles.

A. requiring that turtle-excluder devices be on shrimp nets protect

B. requiring turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting

C. that require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets protect

D. to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets are protecting

E. to require turtle-excluder devices on shrimp nets is protecting

"their compliance" is singular; therefore, (A), (D), (C) are out."requiring" is a modifier, modifying "laws""compliance" does not require, laws require. (B) is correct(E) is saying, "their compliance to require turtle-excluder devices is protecting sea turtles." This does not make sense

I am not sure if you still have this doubt. But there is the explanation.

There is no difference between the expressions laws requiring and laws that require. They both mean the same, and hence, we cannot choose one over the other.

Choice C is incorrect for the incorrect verb protect and not because of laws that require.

Hope this helps. Thanks.Shraddha

_________________

Push yourself again and again. Don't give an inch until the final buzzer sounds. -Larry BirdSuccess isn't something that just happens - success is learned, success is practiced and then it is shared. -Sparky Anderson-S

gmatclubot

Re: Last week local shrimpers held a news conference to take some credit f
[#permalink]
08 Feb 2018, 02:52

MBA Acceptance Rate by Undergraduate Major Many applicants may wonder if their undergraduate major impacts their chance of getting into business school. Admissions data suggests that your college major...